Hofman v Optus & Anor [2003] NSWSC 164

Hofman v Optus & Anor [2003] NSWSC 164

The plaintiff was not denied procedural fairness. She was given a reasonable opportunity to present her case and make submissions in a hearing lasting about two hours; both sides had about equal time; she handed up documents, called a witness, followed Optus' case and interrupted Optus' presentation to respond. On the balance of probabilities she received copies of the Optus documents at the outset of Optus' presentation. The Tribunal also satisfied its duty to promote settlement by giving the parties an opportunity to settle. In any event, relief would have been refused because more than two years had passed and remitting the matter would be futile, as the further documents did not...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 March 2003
Procedural Posture
Application for Prerogative Relief / Judicial Review of Fair Trading Tribunal Decision / Amended Summons Seeking to Appeal or Obtain Relief From the Fair Trading Tribunal Decision Dated 15 October 1999
Outcome
The decision of the Fair Trading Tribunal dated 15 October 1999 was affirmed and the amended summons was dismissed, with the plaintiff to pay the first defendant's costs as agreed or assessed.
Legal Topics
['prerogative Relief' 'natural Justice' 'procedural Fairness' 'fair Trading Tribunal Appeal Limitations' 'delay and Futility of Relief']
['administrative Law' 'consumer Law' 'tribunal Procedure'] ['prerogative Relief' 'natural Justice' 'procedural Fairness' 'fair Trading Tribunal Appeal Limitations' 'delay and Futility of Relief']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Prerogative Relief / Judicial Review of Fair Trading Tribunal Decision / Amended Summons Seeking to Appeal or Obtain Relief From the Fair Trading Tribunal Decision Dated 15 October 1999

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiff was denied natural justice or procedural fairness in the Fair Trading Tribunal hearing.' "Whether the plaintiff was given a reasonable opportunity to present her case, answer Optus' case and deal with documents relied on by Optus." 'Whether the Tribunal complied with its duty to use its best endeavours to bring the parties to a settlement.' 'Whether prerogative relief should be refused because of delay and futility.']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff was not denied procedural fairness. She was given a reasonable opportunity to present her case and make submissions in a hearing lasting about two hours; both sides had about equal time; she handed up documents, called a witness, followed Optus' case and interrupted Optus' presentation to respond. On the balance of probabilities she received copies of the Optus documents at the outset of Optus' presentation. The Tribunal also satisfied its duty to promote settlement by giving the parties an opportunity to settle. In any event, relief would have been refused because more than two years had passed and remitting the matter would be futile, as the further documents did not...

Court Disposition

The decision of the Fair Trading Tribunal dated 15 October 1999 was affirmed and the amended summons was dismissed, with the plaintiff to pay the first defendant's costs as agreed or assessed.

Orders

  • ['The amended summons filed 20 February 2002 is dismissed.' "The plaintiff is to pay the first defendant's costs as agreed or assessed."]